Just as the only arguments worth considering on atheism come from rational objectivism, so the only pro-abortion arguments worth refuting come from the same source.
A different columnist at theobjectivestandard.com argues that pregnant women, just like the rest of us, must be "free to act on...the judgement of (their) own mind(s)" and "An individual (has a) fundamental need to act on his own judgement to further his life and happiness." I agree. I just consider a baby, whether in its mother's uterus or not, to be an individual with the same inalienable rights as the rest of us, even though he can't yet "act on the judgement of his own mind to further his life and happiness."
The argument goes, "but an embryo/fetus isn't a person and it is utterly dependent on (it's mother)" Well, so is a newborn infant. The only difference between an embryo/fetus and a newborn infant is a thin layer of muscle, fat and skin. You're not allowed to kill it on the outside if that layer of tissue, why should you be allowed to kill it on the inside?
I realize that pregnancy is sometimes an unwanted consequence, like an unwanted guest in your home. I fully acknowledge the private property issue here. But let's say the proverbial newborn baby showed up on the doorstep of your home. And let's say you're snowed in for the winter and can't get out for nine months. Is it permissible to murder that baby? Of course not. You care for it for nine months and then take it to the authorities. And so it is with unwanted pregnancy. You can give it up for adoption in nine months. It's extremely inconvenient, but, hey, so are you sometimes and we put up with you.
No comments:
Post a Comment